From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D53F1A62 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:41:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f51.google.com (mail-vk0-f51.google.com [209.85.213.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3389AE2 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b186so153134008vkb.1 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:41:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kVogTszZUAEujglLByB+xydR5i7GQiowEORZoBfKmq0=; b=sGyIfSGRI88Ic6kR0jN3vYw+1SAc52XfvouEgyZ+ZwkDVqBCwK9ojGU1qPmcZNHH4M qD4G8hC/8W3E9M6kwV7Quc7EAXvSBoePbqTkkglfNBfKzPUcBUx5og/hrVoaAE4qHFFZ SR54FRkZ2CAtFLnD6NJKoi9vjZfWMDildjG16sGE+hrfE3tVAH9qkustN3TAsUUoJlJI nXUo5AyVE7O74cSy899Cw+4Z8sAwmVOsTwUdNaojRU93jTC1tZw5ss51hZsm0SMdXmGD LEEoRPDmSJIU7vEzwjAGePhsMyFQnJO82F8pm4eRIaF++WmiwrK9qlEBzeovF6le1dgJ RhcA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=kVogTszZUAEujglLByB+xydR5i7GQiowEORZoBfKmq0=; b=Z8KcVZfEVudy5XQx06uimx/x88GV1OkLMkawNCpVHcYrc3lQ104b4OqS5R8bftSgcX 9W+9CuSaw5G495Bh0B2wJFfNxAOkTZauI5rC9lbypnfm/7AfRKDQ5gvUj0hgynHaJ/wN pv0r76OBwa+oj2pwFRMzKhF62tFId83c8gONsz7RCrdRAUwzT4ERIT4v6jgeE4JTSgKI ASdFOaASvcQZreI0WmKzzEmzJX0IklBKw5TAbcqzyoTtWMz+GUxjgc114uVhfxWfbZkL dIHffViCCnswg+Fuc3xl0Z3L/L24YAPH2CvHhGHDLVZuJXQmjHz6FX+T7i/xN2tWLIFt pMaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rnxq/GaXKA+AkN4cb3Dyg1AfEnmoUix6e9lWUZ6QNt4m0hOsTZ0GibGl531rn+QEakqLLnwJlfN9Mck2Q== X-Received: by 10.31.94.19 with SMTP id s19mr14581588vkb.167.1476643295334; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:41:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.31.15 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:41:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> References: <2d5abad7-cd9d-4396-4dd2-c687a1a808dc@vt.edu> <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:41:34 +0200 Message-ID: To: Tom Zander , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:41:36 -0000 As has been mentioned there have been a lot of time to upgrade software to support segwit. Furthermore, since it is a softfork, there will be plenty of time after activation too for those taking a "wait and see" approach. You keep insisting on "2 months after activation", but that's not how BIP9 works. We could at most change BIP9's initial date, but if those who haven't started to work on supporting segwit will keep waiting for activation, then changing the initial date won't be of any help to them can only delay those who are ready and waiting. The new features are not a requirement after activation. And although it may take some time after activation for the new features to really get to the users, that's just a fact of life that won't change by changing the initial BIP9 date. On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:47:40 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Would I want anyone to lose money due to faulty wallets? Of course not. >> By the same token, devs have had almost a year to tinker with SegWit and >> make sure the wallet isn't so poorly written that it'll flame out when >> SegWit comes along. It's not like this is some untested, mostly unknown >> feature that's being slipped out at the last minute > > There have been objections to the way that SegWit has been implemented for a > long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach. If you look > at the page you linked[1], that is a very very sad state of affairs. The > vast majority is not ready. Would be interesting to get a more up-to-date > view. > Wallets probably won't want to invest resources adding support for a feature > that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer alternative > in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated. We > won't know until its actually locked in. > Wallets may not act until its actually locked in either. And I think we > should respect that. > > Even if all wallets support it (and thats a big if), they need to be rolled > out and people need to actually download those updates. > This takes time, 2 months after the lock-in of SegWit would be the minimum > safe time for people to actually upgrade. > > 1) https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ > -- > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev